DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY (Hansard)
TUESDAY, MAY 26, 1998
Morning
Volume 10, Number 3
[ Page 8097 ]
The House met at 10:04 a.m.
Prayers.
WORKERS COMPENSATION
(OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY)
AMENDMENT ACT, 1998
(continued)
B. Goodacre: I seek leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
B. Goodacre: In the gallery today, we have a group of students from Chandler Park Middle School in Smithers, who are here to visit the chamber and to witness the proceedings this morning. They're here with their teacher, Ms. Côté, and I ask the House to please make them welcome.
Hon. D. Lovick: Yesterday, when the committee adjourned, we had a number of amendments placed on the floor by my colleagues opposite. We gave our sincere undertaking at that moment that we would indeed look carefully at those amendments before making any kind of judgment about their admissibility or acceptability. Because the amendments and issues are complex and because we discovered that there were more amendments still to be dealt with when we adjourned last night at 6 o'clock, I'm going to ask my colleagues opposite if they would be willing to indulge me a little bit and effectively leave those amendments on those particular sections that we stood down, as well as two others that are affected in the same way as the ones we stood down, hanging there until this afternoon, at which time I will have a more detailed opinion. Then we can deal with those things in the way they deserve to be dealt with. I don't want to dismiss amendments in any kind of peremptory way; rather, it seems to me that serious amendments deserve serious consideration. Therefore I would ask if that is acceptable.
What that translates into specifically is a suggestion that section 15, sections 120 to 122, would also be stood down until this afternoon, at which time we will deal with the amendments and with those sections that are so named, simply because those are the sections that are directly impacted by the amendments. My suggestion, then, would be to stand down all those sections leading up to and including
Interjection.
Hon. D. Lovick: I think we can carry on with the others in division 3 -- "General duties," starting at section 15, section 123.
Interjection.
Hon. D. Lovick: Okay. So I gather that all I need to do is to move the formal motion that we stand down section 15, sections 121 and 122, and then carry on from there, if that's acceptable. So I move that, if I might. I think my colleague agrees.
The Chair: All right -- on agreement, section 15, sections 121 and 122 are stood down. We are on section 123 of Bill 14.
Section 15, section 123 approved.
On section 15, section 124.
C. Hansen: Just continuing on with some of the analysis of what some of the specific words mean. Clearly, on a cursory read of this section, there is nothing that particularly jumps out until you start trying to look at words and what they might mean.
I would like to ask the minister to give us some feedback in terms of subsection 124(c), which says: "simultaneous compliance by more than one person would result in unnecessary duplication of effort and expense." The word "unnecessary" can be a very subjective word; it can have different meanings to different people. I wonder if the minister could share with us his definition of that word.
Hon. D. Lovick: I'm not sure that the minister would presume to give his rather egocentric definition of any term. Let me say, rather -- and I think probably more appropriate to our purposes -- that this section is consistent with the recommendations of the royal commission. The particular section the member refers to, subsection (c), is essentially in there for one purpose and one purpose only -- namely, to demonstrate some understanding of the business reality. Now, very clearly we ought to accommodate the realities of the workplace. It's safe to say that this particular section, acknowledging that "unnecessary duplication" could result -- acknowledging that that could happen and that therefore we shouldn't lay on that extra burden -- was our effort to accommodate the concerns of business. That's why it's there.
C. Hansen: Actually, that's the only point I had on section 124. We can move forward to division 4.
Section 15, section 124 approved.
On section 15, section 125.
C. Hansen: I think that this particular division, on the establishment of the joint committees and worker representatives, is something that we may have to spend some time on. Certainly this is an area
I would just like to start by referring back to some of the recommendations that the royal commission made. If I can just read some excerpts from their interim report that focus on this area, I think that we can deal with these. Specifically, I'd like to find out from the minister how we went from the recommendations of the royal commission to what we have before us -- which is really something that the royal commission did not, in my view, recommend.
Quoting from the royal commission report, starting on page 40: "The commission does not feel that it is in a position
[ Page 8098 ]
to state whether basing the 20-50 threshold on the first-aid classification system or adopting the general threshold of 20 workersThe minister in his second reading remarks referred to the first aid classification system. He said here specifically: "Reviews of the hazard classification system have been undertaken in past years without any success." I'd like the minister to outline for us what kind of reviews have been done. Perhaps he could table those documents with us, because we're certainly not aware of any formal review that may have been undertaken in that regard.
Hon. D. Lovick: I'm advised that there hasn't been any formal review, as in a particular document that stands out there by itself. There were, however, ongoing discussions during the process of developing the regulation that was announced on, I think, April 15. Those discussions all apparently came to the same conclusion -- namely, that there wasn't unanimity or consensus on what those particular classifications meant or should mean. They couldn't be rigorously defined -- you know, the business of A, B, C. I understand as well that there have been ongoing discussions between business and labour about the classification system in the period of time spent developing the new regulation, with essentially the same conclusion -- namely, that they have never been able to achieve any kind of unanimity on the divisions between the classifications, albeit they're supposedly defined in terms of high-, medium- and low-hazard workplaces. That's the background. There isn't a so-called formal report, but there certainly is an emerging consensus about what the problem is.
[10:15]
C. Hansen: When the minister stated in his second reading remarks that reviews had been undertaken in past years but without any success, was he saying that there was no success in achieving a consensus between the employer groups and the worker groups that were consulted? Is that what he means when he says there was no success as a result of those reviews?Hon. D. Lovick: Yes.
C. Hansen: I think that begs a question, because he said that there is a consensus emerging on this. I'm just wondering where that consensus, then, comes from.
Hon. D. Lovick: I'm tempted to engage in a semantic game, but the consensus is that there isn't a consensus in terms of what clearly constitutes the A, B, C
C. Hansen: The royal commission did not say that there should be an ongoing review. What the royal commission said is that there should be a review. I'm not playing semantics here; this is quite central to where we're at with this particular section of the legislation. The royal commission looked at this whole issue very clearly. They had access to all of the research, probably much more so than any of us in this chamber. From reading their report, I think they did a very careful evaluation of where we were at in terms of the review of the industry classification system. Their recommendations clearly state
"Therefore the commission recommends that:The royal commission was very clear that even after carefully examining this issue, they could not come up with a recommendation that said: "Yes, you should impose worker committees on low-risk workplaces of less than 50 employees or on other workplaces with less than 20 employees." It's clear in their report that they recommend that this review has to be done. There is no consensus among those who are affected by this legislation; in fact, it's quite the opposite. There are some very differing points of view.. . . The province's occupational health and safety legislation. . . direct the occupational health and safety agency to: (i) review the current industry classification system to ascertain if that system or some other approach should be adopted as the criteria to require employers to establish joint occupational health [and] safety committees at British Columbia worksites with less than 50 workers; and (ii) report its findings to the Minister of Labour so that the province's occupational health and safety statute can be written or amended to reflect the appropriate criteria. . . . "
Given the language that's in the royal commission report, I think it's incumbent upon the minister to ensure that a thorough review is done, as is recommended by the report, and that they approach this area very carefully. In all the stuff I've been through and all the research that's been provided to me from the minister's office, there is nothing in here that justifies going ahead with another workplace committee that's going to be set up and that's going to cost employers money and that has absolutely no proven record of being effective in addressing issues of health and safety.
There is absolutely nothing in the research he has presented to me or in other research I have dug out that shows that in low-risk workplaces, worker safety committees are going to result in fewer accidents in the workplace. We've got a royal commission on one hand that says, "Don't proceed until you know what the heck you're doing," then we've got research that doesn't substantiate that the worker committees are going to have any beneficial effect on low-risk workplaces. Yet we find that somewhere between the time that the royal commission report was introduced and the time this legislation was tabled in the House, we had all these worker committees written in. We've got significant new costs that are being added onto employers, and there is absolutely no justification for doing that.
I would like to ask the minister how we went from a royal commission report that was presented
Hon. D. Lovick: The minister will be delighted to explain. I'll ask the member to please sit back patiently and indulge me, because this will take a little time.
Let me start, however, by making clear for the record what the royal commission did recommend. I draw the member's attention to recommendation 12(c):
"at any workplace where there are 20 to 49 workers the employer must establish and maintain a joint health safety
[ Page 8099 ]
committee unless the employer is exempted from so doing on application to the occupational health and safety agency or unless the employer is exempted by virtue of falling into an exemption classification or industry as established by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council on recommendation by the agency."So acknowledge, then, recommendation 12. The member quoted it a moment ago, so he should have it. The question the member is really asking, I think, is on simply those workplaces of fewer than 20 members. I think that's really what he's getting onto and what he perceives to be a wilful disregard somehow on the part of government of the royal commission's recommendation insofar as it pertains to workplaces with fewer than 20 people.
Let me now give the background. First of all, it's worth noting that the current requirement for occupational health and safety committees is based on size of operation and on an A, B and C classification system. Employers in the A or B hazard are required to have a committee if they have 20 or more workers. Employers in the C hazard are required to have a committee if they have 50 or more workers. The hazard classifications are taken from the occupational first-aid regulations.
One of the arguments presented -- and I make no hesitation in explaining from whom -- is from workers: namely, labour. They argue that the hazard classifications in that system are more trauma-based and do not accurately reflect the actual hazards of an industry or an occupation. The royal commission, in response to that contention, stated that it was not able to comment definitively on whether the current hazard classification system or some other system was the more appropriate. They recommended, then, that there be a review to determine the most effective approach and that the results of the review would be used to draft the occupational health and safety legislation.
So far, I think, we're on the historical record, and now we have the divergent view, so let me come at that. Following discussions with the various stakeholders, including the WCB, it was decided that no review needed to be undertaken. The WCB has attempted in the past to review the hazard classification system, with little success and indeed, as I was referring to earlier, little consensus from business and from labour.
Since the hazard classification system is indeed first-aid and trauma-based, rather than workplace hazard-related, in our opinion it does not provide an accurate measure of the need for a committee or of the true hazard level of the workplace. That's the basic contention. I make no apology for the fact that not every single thing that was said by the royal commission was indeed accepted and acted upon. Government's job is obviously to take advice and input from all the parties, but ultimately the proverbial buck stops with government, and it's their choice to decide what and what not to act on. Royal commissions aren't government.
C. Hansen: Certainly everybody that I've talked to in this area recognizes that the first-aid classification system is not the best vehicle that we have for determining hazardous worksites. That's one thing that I think the minister would probably find consensus on from all those who are affected by this legislation. There is agreement on the need to look at that system, in order to come up with a relevant classification system for industries that need and can benefit from joint health and safety committees.
But the route that this government has chosen is to impose joint committees on every single workplace in the province, regardless of hazard level. From the evidence that is out there, that is not warranted and is not justified. I would like to ask the minister why they have chosen to go the route of imposing joint committees on all industry sectors, regardless of hazard. Why have they chosen to impose the committees on everyone, rather than trying to come up with a system of classification that can truly identify the worksites that can most benefit from joint committees?
Hon. D. Lovick: With all due respect to my colleague across the way, I think my previous statements have indeed answered that question. You may or may not like the answers, and that's legitimate, but I've certainly given them.
Let me just clarify again: partly because it is government's determination that given the confusion regarding the hazard system, given the fact that the royal commission said that it was not going to make a specific recommendation but rather that an ongoing review
Both the employer and worker representatives, we all know, expected that the royal commission would address these issues. Both the stakeholder groups that were involved in the review indicated that they wanted these issues dealt with as soon as possible. We therefore concluded that as soon as possible means in this legislation rather than waiting any longer.
The royal commission did not fully address the issue of joint committees. They deliberately and consciously left it to government to make a final decision on the direction to pursue with respect to joint committees -- in particular, the appropriate threshold levels for joint committees and workers health and safety representatives, their functions and duties and educational leave, and all those other things built in.
Bill 14 reflects the policy directions decided by the cabinet. The members, as I say, may not be entirely happy with that decision, but that's cabinet's decision. I think I've given an explanation as to why that position was taken. Disagree if we will, that's the position. I'm not sure I can say much else beyond what I have, but I'll endeavour to answer other specific questions if there are some.
C. Hansen: I don't feel the minister has explained to us why they have chosen to go this route. He's said that there's been a process of looking at this and that stakeholders didn't agree, that stakeholders all had their opportunity to have input into the royal commission. He talked about a process, but he hasn't explained to us why they've decided to go ahead with the committees being imposed on all workplaces now, other than
The royal commission, having listened to all those stakeholders, found that there definitely was not a consensus of opinion on this. Clearly, organized labour wanted to see an expansion of the committee system, and employer groups -- in particular small business groups -- around British Columbia were very adamant that they did not want to see worker committees imposed until it could be justified that they actually would benefit the health and safety record. But what we have before us is an imposition of a committee structure and an imposition of costs on employers, without any evidence that it's going to result in lower health and safety rates.
The minister, when he wrapped up our discussion on second reading, made this comment: "
[ Page 8100 ]
arguable and in my opinion certainly demonstrable[10:30]
Hon. D. Lovick: I think the member quite correctly quoted me as saying that, in my opinion, it is demonstrable. In other words, it will be. When we see this system in place, we will find out. As well, we have some research that enables us, I think, to draw that conclusion. At least, it's a reasonable conclusion to draw, based on the research we've carried out, that this will indeed improve the circumstances. If it decreases the likelihood of accidents and injuries in the workplace, it necessarily follows that there will be reduced costs. That's the basic logical argument we're presenting. If the member's asking me to quantify and say how many dollars, I can't do that. I can, however, present what I think is a clearly logical argument and the reasons for drawing the conclusion we have drawn.Let me just emphasize a couple of points, though. In case I have somehow obscured this argument or the steps in it, I apologize for that. I thought I was clear. Point one is that efforts at review have failed to date. Both parties involved in the focus groups said that government should act. At the end of the day government has to decide. Given that we don't seem to be making any progress in establishing consensus, government therefore takes a position. Government decides. That's government's job.
Point two is that I think there is evidence. Contrary to the member saying that there is no evidence whatsoever that this will make a difference, I would suggest that there is considerable evidence. The evidence essentially goes back to my main theme, which I've tried to articulate on numerous occasions thus far, that we're trying to grow a culture of cooperation where we're all committed to creating a safer workplace. Anything that contributes to that culture, it seems to me, may well have a significant impact on reducing accidents and injuries in the workplace.
What joint committees do of necessity is say to employers and workers that we require a commitment from both of them to work together to solve workplace problems. That's what a joint committee is by definition. I think the fact that employers and workers meet to talk about something that is in their common interest, and that they meet on a common ground, is very likely to be helpful towards improved labour relations. I would also suggest that it isn't unreasonable to expect that it might improve productivity.
Certainly that's the argument that was presented to me when I met -- and I referred to this the other day, Mr. Chairman -- with the management and labour folks at Harmac Pacific in Nanaimo. Their argument is that this new partnership culture we have grown in Nanaimo at the mill is one that we are all benefiting from. We lose fewer work days and our production system is improving and that's why management, from a bottom-line prospective, is entirely behind the joint committees and working very hard to make sure they function.
It just seems to me that there are all kinds of commonsense indicators, if you will, that if you have management and workers both sitting down together on the committee to talk about making sure that people don't get hurt or injured on the job, that's better for a workplace. I don't think there's a logical leap imbedded in that. That seems to me pretty commonsensical and pretty understandable without the point being belaboured much more. In any event, I think that I have articulated the case for why government has taken this position. I've argued with what I think is sufficient evidence to support the conclusion that workplace health and safety committees are desirable and will be helpful, and probably will indeed prove to be cost-effective and beneficial to companies as well.
I'm getting tired of hearing myself make the same points again and again, and I'm beginning to wonder whether I need to say any more. I think we've been through this; we've seen two sides of an argument. I'm perfectly prepared to answer specific questions, but it seems to me that the basic argument for having workplace committees in places with 20 or more employees has been effectively and adequately demonstrated by me and in my comments thus far. I'm not sure there is indeed anything more to say. I hope the member will say: "Well, I'm not sure I like what the minister's saying, but at least I acknowledge that, and we may agree to disagree." But, again, if he has more questions, I will be happy to try to respond to them.
C. Hansen: Given the minister's current understanding of this issue, he may feel that way. I have some information I will share with him that may change his point of view on this in terms of what some of this research actually says.
I would not like to leave this comment that the minister made in second reading, where he talked about how the reduction in premiums "should more than offset any additional costs." I just did some quick numbers. A typical low-hazard workplace in British Columbia that has had no history of WCB claims could conceivably be paying a rate of about 33 cents per hundred. That would be a typical rate for a low-hazard worksite with no claims history. If you take 20 employees at an average salary of $25,000, that would give you a total payroll of about half a million dollars. The WCB annual premiums on that worksite would work out to be about $1,650, if I've done my arithmetic right.
Then you start looking at the cost of these committees that are being set up. I think the idea of committees and this cooperative workplace that the minister's talking about -- this spirit of a safety culture in a worksite -- are all wonderful objectives. If there wasn't a cost side to this, I think we could all embrace it. But the fact is that there is a considerable cost side that is being imposed on small business in British Columbia at a time when they can least afford it.
I don't think the minister fully appreciates the cost side that is attached to these committees, because I don't think they've done the work on it. Could the minister tell me if they have done any analysis to determine what additional average cost an employer with between ten and 20 employees in a low-hazard worksite will be facing as a result of this legislation?
Hon. D. Lovick: I'm worried, Mr. Chairman, because the member's last question alarms me. There won't be any joint committees in workplaces of ten to 19 members. So the question -- in terms of this horrible cost -- demonstrates to me that something got lost. Thus far the member has demonstrated pretty good understanding of the bill, but the last question shows that he is missing the point. There aren't committees for workplaces of that size. That's the first point.
The member also said that the government, the minister, doesn't seem to understand the imposition and the extra
[ Page 8101 ]
burden this will lay on business. I don't want to start making accusations, but I have to say that if that's the kind of accusation to be levelled, then I would argue that perhaps the member opposite and his colleagues don't seem to understand the reality of accidents and injury in the workplace. It happens. Let me give you one small example. Here's a true story.Those who argue that small businesses are safe and don't need joint committees -- because, after all, small is therefore safe or something -- forget the painful reality that accidents do occur, and people do get killed. I'll give an example. Recently, a 49-year-old man working for a small painting contractor fell off a scaffold of a mere eight feet -- only eight feet high. It was a tiny little, dare I say, Mickey Mouse operation. He fell from an apartment loft where he was spraying the ceiling. Because the regulations only require guard rails for heights of ten feet and above, there was no violation of the regulations. The result, unfortunately, is that this man died of massive head injuries when he fell from that eight-foot height. Sadly, he happened also to leave a family of four children and a wife. The regulations, in short, couldn't capture -- because the assumption was that it was too small and too Mickey Mouse to worry about; ten feet was surely a reasonable measure
What we have here is a demonstration that surely workers would be able to say: "Wait a minute." Whatever the regulation might say or mightn't say, common sense on the workplace floor would tell you that eight feet down is a long way, and, dammit, there ought to be protection for a worker at that workplace. If a worker said to a foreman, supervisor or whomever, "Look, I am concerned about this because if I fall over there, that's concrete beneath me, and I can have a problem," I would imagine that any supervisor with any brains -- and I suspect everybody in the construction industry would recognize it -- would say: "You're right. Let's bang together some kind of guard rail around that scaffold so that it won't happen." And that would be achieved by the ongoing regular discussion of a joint committee. That's the kind of thing this legislation is about; that's what joint committees accomplish.
I don't think, with all due deference to my colleague, that this is a huge amount
C. Hansen: I think everybody is saddened when we hear stories of workers who are injured or killed on the worksite. I think the minister in his comment referred to
When I asked my last question, I did misspeak. I referred to worksites with ten to 20 employees and joint committees, and the minister's right: I used the wrong numbers in that comment. So let me come back to it: has the minister received any evaluation of the costs that will be imposed on the average low-hazard worksite with between 20 and 50 employees, in terms of what it will cost them to implement the recommendations contained in this section?
[10:45]
Hon. D. Lovick: The short answer is no. But rather than leave that hanging, I want to elaborate ever so briefly.One of the independent studies -- one of the independent assessments of occupational health and safety in B.C. that we looked at
So committees do work. I think we have lots of anecdotal and statistical evidence to demonstrate that. We stand quite happily behind the proposition that joint health and safety committees, worker-employer committees, are a good thing for workers, a good thing for the workplace and indirectly, implicitly, a good thing for employers and owners as well.
C. Hansen: I've been through the research the minister has provided to me, and I'd be pleased to go through all of it and pick it apart. I'm concerned that if this is the research that we are relying on to justify these legislative initiatives, it's pretty slim. The research that was presented does not give the statistical, empirical analysis that justifies these activities.
I will comment on one of them. I know my colleague from Chilliwack wants to comment briefly on the impact this is going to have on some small companies, but before I turn it over to him, I'll refer back to the study that the minister just referred to from this group in Massachusetts. He says the authors recommend that consideration be given to requiring health and safety committees to all workplaces, regardless of size. That was not their finding in a research document; the recommendation is that consideration should be given
We can certainly look at some of that other research, because if the minister has an impression from this research
[ Page 8102 ]
that it defends where we're going with this legislationBefore we get into the academic side of it, I think we've really got to look at the human side and the impact that this is going to have on a few companies. I think my colleague from Chilliwack would like to share some of that with us.
B. Penner: I'm aware, as is the minister, that there are two thresholds identified in Bill 14 that apply to businesses. One threshold applies to businesses with ten employees or more. The second threshold applies to businesses with 20 employees or more. In the last couple of days, as word about the impact of Bill 14 permeates the province, I've started to receive input from small businesses in my community. I think we're going to be hearing more about it in the days and weeks to come.
I've decided, hon. Chair, that it would benefit the minister and other members of this House to hear some of the comments from small businesses in the upper Fraser Valley and what they think about Bill 14.
I got this from a financial adviser who advises business in Chilliwack, and they state as follows:
"We are a borderline business with nine employees. We will not be expanding further as it would be too costly. We are a paper-intensive firm with no accidents! We could probably use additional support staff, but it is now too costly."Another response I received last night states as follows:
"My business is producing foodFrom a travel agency, I got this response:. . . . This is just another example of a government attitude that discourages investment and drives away business and jobs from B.C. I need these people here to buy the food that I produce."
"This is another example of government out of touch with the reality of the workplace. This government says it supports small business but obviously doesn't have a clue how small business operates."This from a video store owner:
"More unnecessary paperwork is costs. We have over ten employees and have never had a claim or injury in five yearsAnd this is from a sign-making company in my constituency:. . . totally foolish idea. . . would not likely put it into practice."
"That's some preliminary input that I've received in Chilliwack about the impact of Bill 14. I know that. . . yet another slap in the face for business of any size, on the heels of a series of decisions from an administration that has a clear mandate to destroy our B.C. economy and turn B.C. into a have-not province. Our business was started in 1993 as a family affair, and through a lot of blood, sweat and tears, it has blossomed into two locations with eight employees. We have invested heavily into modern equipment and invest a lot of our own time and money to train our staff in efficient and safe ways to perform their tasks. I question how Bill 14 could do any more than complicate what we have already been able to establish, as we have had only one small claim to Workers Compensation -- a small cut to staff member's index finger -- since 1993."We are currently reworking our business plan to include further expansion and the creation of two new job positions. We all know that B.C. as a whole, and particularly Chilliwack, needs more jobs, right? Once again, I find myself shaking my head and asking: why do I keep fighting a battle with the odds so strongly stacked against the success of our labours?"
Interjection.
B. Penner: These were not phone calls; these are letters that people are writing to my constituency office. This is the reality. I know that this government likes to spend millions of taxpayers' money on TV commercials bragging about creating a positive investment and job creation climate in British Columbia, but this is the reality. Businesses are saying: why should we expand from eight or nine employees and cross that threshold
I think we as legislators need to take this into consideration. It's fine to get into academic discussions, but this is the real impact. I heard the minister say earlier that he's worried about the number of workdays lost in British Columbia. I think if this bill passes, we'll see more workdays lost because of unemployment in British Columbia.
C. Hansen: Certainly one of the things that I have heard over and over again in the last two years since the election was small businesses that talk about the incentives that are placed upon them not to hire additional staff. If you start looking at some of the ramifications of the Employment Standards Act
In fact, we should have the exact opposite situation in our province. We should have an attitude among the small business community that they actually benefit from creating new jobs and expanding their companies. I talk to companies that basically are successful in spite of the economic climate that we have in British Columbia. They have an opportunity perhaps to open their operations on Sundays or to stay open later at night, but they're simply not going to do it, because of the increased costs and the liability being put on the small businesses because of government-driven costs.
What we have before us here is one more government-driven cost. The minister commented yesterday that he is getting a lot of letters on this bill. I would bet that many of those letters, if he's taken the time to read them, will actually say that this one provision is good reason for a company not to go from nine to ten employees or not to go from 19 to 20 employees. They will see this as an imposition by government of additional costs that they don't need. Clearly I don't think the minister has thought through the ramifications of this section.
If the royal commission had come in and recommended this, and said, "Yes, we've examined this; we've heard all points of view. We've heard the small business community say they don't want it, and we've heard the big trade union groups say that they do want it. But we as a royal commission are going to recommend anyway that we want to go ahead with these joint committees," then that would be quite a different situation. We might be standing here arguing against it because of the imposition of costs, and we might be saying that we think the royal commission made a bad recommendation. But that's not the case. The royal commission said that they did not have evidence to support proceeding with the wholesale imposition of these committees on low-risk companies and on smaller companies. What they clearly said was: "Review it."
We have a government that has made a political decision to ignore that advice. They're going to proceed, in spite of the
[ Page 8103 ]
recommendations of the royal commission, to impose these committees and worker safety reps on all workplaces in British Columbia that have more than nine employees. They have no evidence to back that up or to support it, but they are doing it for purely political reasons. We're standing up here to make sure that it is evident to everybody that the imposition of this legislation is done for political reasons. It has got a political motivation behind it; it is not based on the sound, reasoned judgment of the royal commission.There are other parts of the royal commission's recommendations included in this particular legislation that I will speak out against, because I disagree with them. Quite frankly, I appreciate the fact that I'm not on as strong a ground, speaking out against the recommendations of the royal commission, as I am on this particular section. The royal commission is made up of a neutral chair, an employer representative and an employee representative. We have on that royal commission a former president or vice-president of the IWA, a former senior officer of the B.C. Federation of Labour. He's one of the royal commission reps, yet he put his signature to this document that didn't say to go ahead with the wholesale imposition of committees. He said: "Let's do some reasoned review and determine whether or not there's an advantage to bringing them in."
That's not what we have before us. We've got a government that, for purely political reasons, is ramming this thing through without the review being done to justify that it is necessary. As the minister just indicated to us earlier, absolutely no work has been done to determine the costs that this is going to have on small business. We see public policy being brought in time and time again in the form of legislation that is coming from a body that does not have experience with small business. I'm not sure whether there is anybody on the government benches that has met a payroll with more than nine people on it -- ever. I'm not sure there is anybody on those government benches -- in cabinet or on the back benches -- that understands the day-to-day pressures of a medium-sized or small company in terms of trying to meet that payroll and keep those jobs in place, trying to pay down the second and third mortgages on the house that were necessary in order to get the financing to expand the company, so that they could have more than nine employees in the first place. What we're seeing is just more costs being imposed.
I would like to share some of my arithmetic with the minister in terms of the kinds of costs that do get imposed. I don't think he understands the costs that are imposed on small business -- especially when you go back to the comment he made that the reduction in premium costs will more than offset the costs that are going to be incurred.
[11:00]
If you start looking at a typical small business with 20 employeesBut if you start talking about a one-and-a-half-hour meeting once a month by this committee, then you're talking about an additional cost to the employer of about $1,000. That's assuming that they do this during regular working hours and that the employer is not paying overtime to all of these individuals while they're participating in these meetings. But typically, if you take an employer in a small business, they don't have employees to whom they can say: "Oh well, sure, take time. Take an hour and a half and go off and have a meeting during the regular working day." If you could dispense with an employee for that kind of time, then you wouldn't need the employee in the first place for that amount of time. Small businesses, being cut to the bone as they are today, would not be paying salaries for that time. So typically, we're probably talking about overtime, because these meetings are going to take place after hours.
Then you start talking about the cost of training, which the employer has to pick up; you're talking about the cost of clerical support, which the employer is obligated to pay -- and again, there are no guidelines in here as to what the parameters of that are. You are easily talking about a cost to every employer that is in excess of the total premiums that they are paying on an annual basis today. So what you're doing, effectively
I am surprised, quite frankly -- given the advice of the royal commission to review this thing and the fact that the minister just indicated to us that they have not done any studies to look at the cost side of this legislation -- that they're not taking a much closer look at this before imposing it. If you think that there's anger today in the small business community, that anger is only going to get one heck of a lot worse if you start imposing more costs on them in a way that government cannot justify. If you want to impose these kinds of additional costs on small business and you've got the documentation to say, "Yes, this is going to produce safer workplaces; yes, this legislation is actually going to produce the results that the minister thinks it's going to produce," then you're going to find that you're going to have small businesses all over this province that
One other area that the royal commission recommended and that the minister has chosen to ignore
[ Page 8104 ]
There's also a reference in the same vein to committees, which I may not be able to put my finger on immediately. But I can certainly find reference to it. That's again going back to recommendation 12(c): "at any workplace where there are 20 to 49 workers the employer must establish and maintain a joint health safety committee" -- so now we're talking about both committees and reps -- "unless the employer is exempted from so doing on application to the occupational health and safety agency or unless the employer is exempted by virtue of falling into an exemption classification or industry as established by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council on recommendation by the agency."Clearly the royal commission was recommending to government that they put in place a mechanism whereby entire industries could be exempted from the requirement of safety representatives and safety committees. We find that nowhere in this legislation, and I would like the minister to explain to the House why that recommendation was not followed through on.
The Chair: Members, just before I recognize the minister, the Chair wants to express some concern about the progress on this bill. I appreciate that there are strong views on both sides of this issue, and it's my observation that we've had prolonged debate on this section. I just want to caution members on the relevance and repetition of the debate.
C. Hansen: With your indulgence, I will speak to that point.
The Chair: Member, that's not a debatable point.
C. Hansen: Okay. I will defer to the minister's response to my previous question, and I will ensure relevance of my future comments.
Hon. D. Lovick: Thank you for your caution, hon. Chair. I will certainly endeavour to ensure that I stick directly to the point.
The member asked a question about why we have introduced this provision for joint health and safety committees in each place where 20 or more workers are regularly employed. That's what this section is saying. It changes from existing legislation, but the change is not as huge as the member's comments would suggest. Indeed, we're only talking about a sub-set of workplaces that are newly affected by this legislation. We guesstimate that probably 6,000 firms may be affected. Those are essentially firms that used to be in the C-hazard category but had fewer than 50 workers. We are now saying that firms in that circumstance will find themselves in a position where they need joint worker committees.
We've eliminated in the legislation the use of the hazard classification system as a determinant for a committee. We have replaced that with setting a minimum threshold of 20 workers regardless of hazard. This is consistent with other jurisdictions, it should be noted, though, as I say, it will establish a new obligation for some. The opposition and indeed some businesses have argued that former C-hazard workplaces should not have to have committees since they are low-risk workplaces. That's the contention. While not hazardous in the same way as, for example, a logging operation or a construction site, workplaces such as offices have their own hazards -- for example, ergonomics issues, air quality, workplace violence, etc. -- and we should not forget that. Joint committees, I think, will go a long way toward ensuring that accidents and injuries that happen in those workplaces will also be significantly reduced and, we would hope, prevented to a great extent.
That's what we're talking about. We suspect
I think I will restrict my remarks to just that, Mr. Chair, accepting your last caution.
C. Hansen: I certainly don't want to create the impression that somehow we're needlessly dragging out the debate on this section. This section is probably quite central to this entire division, and there are areas that I think it's quite important that we explore. So I will ensure that we move it forward as expeditiously as possible and cover the ground that we have to cover.
The minister, as I mentioned earlier, did comment about the research that was there. I've taken the time
This particular bill
If I can just quote briefly from one section here
There are a couple of things that are important to point out. First of all, they do have this very different environment in which these committees are operating. But also, in the 1980s -- the time period that the study was looking at -- the committees only applied to a limited number of workplaces in Ontario. We're talking only about the high-risk areas. I'm not sure if I've got the quick reference here to the areas that are not included. Here it is. Under Bill 70, the committees were mandatory in workplaces with more than 20 workers, except in the case of offices, retail establishments, restaurants, hotels and a few other non-manufacturing industries.
[ Page 8105 ]
Later, in 1990, Ontario actually expanded their role of committees to include more workplaces than that. But the time that this study pertained to[11:15]
If you brought in a system -- and this is directly relevant, and it will lead to a question to the minister specifically -- to make it desirable for employers to create that culture of safety in their workplaceMy question to the minister is: did he consider any alternative ways of creating this culture of safety in a workplace that would result in workers and employers voluntarily putting together safety committees to address these issues? That's where you can show some evidence of success.
Hon. D. Lovick: I am sure that they did, and I am sure that those workplaces which have voluntarily created safety committees will discover that their standards are probably higher than anything stipulated by this legislation. Therefore they will not be affected in any way, shape or form by the legislation, because they're probably doing it already. The point, however, is that there are a whole bunch of others that aren't doing it -- and government is sending a signal to those workplaces that safety matters: "We want you to demonstrate a commitment to workplace health and safety."
The member thinks that's too onerous -- fine. I disagree. The member comes from the perspective that anything we do to encourage workplace health and safety is somehow antipathetic to and incompatible with business. Fine; let him say so. I disagree.
This is about workers and workers' safety. It's about workplace health and safety. It's a reasonable compromise. It's a reasonable effort to do what government can, what I think that government has a moral duty to do -- namely, to ensure that there are no needless accidents, injuries and deaths in the workplace. We recognize that the vehicle of joint health and safety committees is an appropriate one that we think will be effective. We do not think that it will impose an onerous cost burden on employers. That's the case that we present.
C. Hansen: What I see in here is not a compromise. What I see is that you've got one stakeholder group in British Columbia that's advocated for this, and they're getting it. There's no compromise here. What the minister said is that this is all about health and safety. It's not about health and safety; this is about process. This is about setting up more committees. This is about having more meetings. It's not about creating safer workplaces, because the minister has absolutely nothing to support his argument that it will in fact enhance safety. We've belaboured that one, so I appreciate the fact that I'm not going to get anywhere on it.
Clearly, I think that there are some big failings in the way that this government has approached this initiative. First of all, they haven't done their homework in terms of the review that the royal commission has asked for. Secondly, they have done absolutely no evaluation of the costs that are being imposed on small businesses; they haven't got the foggiest idea what those are. As one who has been there, running a company with between ten and 20 employees, I know what those costs are all about, and I know that this is significant.
The third thing that I think we disagree with is that somehow this kind of mandatory structure is the route to go in, rather than an alternative approach which would genuinely have been a compromise between the stakeholder groups that are out there, where one wants mandatory committees and the other perhaps wants no committees at all. If we want to find a compromise, it's a process whereby using the mechanisms that the WCB has at its disposal, such as premium rates, there are incentives given to those employees who willingly put safety committees in place and who have this safety culture. But you can't legislate that stuff; you can't legislate an attitude toward safety in British Columbia. That's where this approach, I think, is failing.
I want to deal with a couple of very specific issues that are in the wording of this legislation. This section that we're dealing with -- section 15, section 125 -- says: "An employer must establish and maintain a joint health and safety committee (a) in each workplace where 20 or more workers of the employer are regularly employed
Hon. D. Lovick: The next section deals with possible variations to the committee structure, and I think we'll pick that question up there.
C. Hansen: I appreciate that there are those variations, but I guess what I would like to make sure that we deal with before we leave this section is the application of the definition of "workers." You know, as I think as we discussed when we were talking about the definitions section, workers can include trainees; it can include several other things. I know that at the time when we were talking about definitions, the minister relied on the word "regularly." I would like him to elaborate on what this means for an employer in terms of
[ Page 8106 ]
what "regularly employed" is. When we talked about that, we didn't come down to a definition of what constitutes regular employment in a worksite.Hon. D. Lovick: The answer is that "regularly employed" means its ordinary contextual meaning. This is a commonsense issue; this is not some technical, difficult trick to try and sneak something in. Frankly, I'm amazed by the question. It seems to me that it is about as clear as one can possibly be: "
C. Hansen: I think we in this House have a duty to make sure that the words that are presented in legislation are understood. The minister may feel that there is a very commonsense definition of it. In that case, it should be quite easy for him to expand on, because I think that there certainly are some variations. It is a subjective word. If we don't have some interpretation of what this means, you've got to come back to who, in turn, is going to define this and who's going to give this some parameters.
I would like to give an example to the minister -- whether or not this constitutes a worksite that needs to have a health and safety committee established. Let's say you've got a motel or a small lodge in Ucluelet, to pick an area on Vancouver Island that the minister's probably familiar with. If you have a situation where you've got five full-time employees at that motel and you have 15 part-time individuals who come in to do maintenance for example. They may come in on a regular basis for five hours a week or more than that. Let's say they come in for one day a week. You've got 15 employees who put in one day a week, some as chambermaids, some as maintenance -- those types of functions. Does that constitute a workplace where there are 20 workers of the employer regularly employed?
Hon. D. Lovick: If that is regular and ongoing, and if every week it happens that that many people are there, the answer would be yes.
C. Hansen: That response clarifies for me what the meaning of this is. Let me just give another example. Coming back to the farm I was referring to earlier, you've got five full-time employees of the farm -- full-time year-round -- and then another group of employees who come in for one month to plow and another group who come in for one month to plant. To go back to my own experience picking strawberries as a 12-year-old, you've got one group who come in to plant strawberry plants. At a later stage, you've got another group who come in for one month to pick the strawberries. Throughout the year, you've got a constant turnover of staff who are employed for term positions only but, on average, the worksite would have more than 20 employees at any one time. Now, is that considered regular in the basis of this definition?
Hon. D. Lovick: The answer is that it would very much depend on the specific circumstances, and talking about half-baked and not entirely well-established hypothetical situations
C. Hansen: A minute ago, the minister was saying that this sentence is very clear to anybody and everybody in this chamber except for me. Now I've set out two examples and the minister can't tell me whether the second example fits into regular employment. If I can take it out of the context of a specific example and try to enunciate it in general terms
If you wind up with a transient workforce on a worksite where, on average, there are 20 or more employees
Hon. D. Lovick: I've just been given a note and some background that I think will answer the member's question. The information I am given is that the word "regularly" was added at the request of the reference group when they looked at this. They wanted "regularly" in there to differentiate from casual employees. I think that is the clarification the member is looking for. That should give him the assurance he is seeking.
[11:30]
The Chair: I recognize the member for North Island.G. Robertson: Hon. Chair, I ask for leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
G. Robertson: With us today from Fort Rupert Elementary School in Port Hardy we have two teachers, Mr. d'Arcangelo and Ms. Pearson, and seven students. They've come down from northern Vancouver Island, and it's a great pleasure to see them here today. I would ask that the members please make them welcome in the precincts.
C. Hansen: What the minister is telling me is that there is a specific document that explains what "regularly" means in this context. Maybe I'm putting too much on this -- that there is some kind of formal definition of this -- but when he says that we've used the word "regularly" to differentiate from casual employees
I guess maybe what I should do is to back up and ask the minister to define what "casual" means in this context. I'm not
[ Page 8107 ]
trying to belabour it, but I think this is going to be very important to how we interpret this section. If casual is meant to be purely a term employee, as opposed to a part-time employee, is the minister differentiating between part-time and casual employees? As we talked about earlier, in the case of the motel, if you've got regular, part-time employees that work on a year-round basis, are they not also considered casual in that regard?Hon. D. Lovick: The member quite correctly points out that it's possible to be a part-time, regular employee. The permutations and combinations, quite frankly, can boggle the mind when we talk about stuff like this. There has to, at some point, be the triumph of common sense -- that words mean what they say they do.
I think that the clarifications we have provided thus far demonstrate what we're trying to do: namely, the workplace normally will have 20 people working there, and therefore a joint health and safety committee would be appropriate and indeed necessary. If in fact the workplace is one in which the preponderant majority of the workers are transient, obviously the logic and the commonsense construct of having a joint committee disappears. If most of the people don't work there on a regular basis, how can you have an ongoing committee?
What we're getting at is simply to say that there's a factor of size, and in order to protect employers against the circumstance in which -- aha! -- suddenly there are
I'm amazed that we're having this discussion, quite frankly. It seems to me pretty straightforward.
C. Hansen: But it's interesting. I read this sentence, and I had it in my mind that it was very clear, and somebody said to me: "Well, what about this?" I said: "That's not what it says." I went back and read it again, and I said: "Oh no, wait a second. If you look at it from the point of view of the way that it was just described, then you're right; it does take on a totally different connotation." But I actually thought we were getting this clarified until the minister's last comments.
If I can clarify one of two things, I think we can then move on from this. We have a workplace that has 20 workers on a regular basis -- in other words, you've got a payroll with 21 names on it of individuals who are regularly employed at that site. That, as I understand it, would then constitute the requirement for a committee under this section. That's my read of this section: you've got 20 regular workers. They show up, they get to know each other and they're all on a first-name basis. The workers choose their reps, the management choose their reps, and lo and behold, you've got a safety committee.
That's my read of this sentence, but I just want to make sure that
Hon. D. Lovick: It's quite clear, Mr. Chairman.
C. Hansen: I'm sorry, hon. Chair, but I would like the minister to be clear on what we are talking about. He just said: "It's clear." What is clear is that this sentence means that it's a workplace that has 20 regular workers in it? Is that what's clear?
Hon. D. Lovick: I'm beginning to smile, and I can't restrain myself. Yes, that's clear. Something else the member said was probably also clear, but he can rearticulate that if he so wishes.
C. Hansen: Thank you. I think we're making good progress -- honest. In other words, what the minister said is that we have 20 workers who are regularly employed, as opposed to this other interpretation that you have an average of more than 20 employees at any one given time -- that is not what this is intended to accomplish. If that's the understanding, then we can move forward. I apologize to the Chair that it took us as long to get there as it did.
I would like to ask the minister about subsection (b), where it says that the employer must establish these committees "in any other workplace for which a joint committee is required by order." I just want to be clear that this could mean that when you have a workplace with between ten and 19 employees, the WCB itself, through an order, could dictate that this workplace has to establish a committee, even though they have between ten and 19 employees.
Hon. D. Lovick: A nice, straightforward question deserving a nice, straightforward answer. The WCB currently has the power and the mandate to make regulation in special circumstances. When the workplace is perceived to be especially hazardous -- for example, a dynamite factory or a firecracker factory or something like that
C. Hansen: I anticipated that answer from the minister, and I certainly want to come back to this very point when we get to section 139. My concern is that we have built a particular problem into this legislation. What we do not have in this legislation, which again goes back to the royal commission report, is the power of the board to exempt a workplace from the provisions of either section 125 or section 139. I think we may have written in a problem for ourselves, which we can discuss when we get to section 139.
There are some other areas that we will be talking about in terms of the costs of committees, but I think that we will be able to discuss those specifically when we start looking at some of the sections that deal with the various activities that they're entitled to -- section 135. We may have some very specific circumstances that may not have been foreseen that we will be wanting to deal with when we get to that section. So on that note, we can probably deal with section 125 and move onto section 126.
Section 15, section 125 approved.
[ Page 8108 ]
On section 15, section 126.C. Hansen: Here we get into the section that talks about variations: "
When we talk about an order in this context, are we talking about an order that is directed to a specific employer, or are we talking about an order directed to a specific worksite, or are we talking about an order that could be directed to an entire industry or classification?
Hon. D. Lovick: It could include one employer, it could include multiple employers, and it could include multiple workplaces essentially owned by one employer.
C. Hansen: I guess, just to clarify, this would not be a power that would be used for a general order to apply to a specific industry or specific classification. Am I correct in that? The minister is nodding, so I'll take that as yes.
Hon. D. Lovick: Yes, that is correct.
C. Hansen: With that, we can probably deal with this section.
Section 15, section 126 approved.
On section 15, section 127.
C. Hansen: Here we have the membership of the joint committee and the makeup of the joint committees. I have a real concern with a provision that's provided under the regulations in section 224. Section 224(1) says: "The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations referred to in section 41
Interjection.
C. Hansen: Beg your pardon?
The Chair: Through the Chair, please, members.
C. Hansen: We've increased the number of members on a committee beyond four, which is provided for here.
Hon. D. Lovick: Mr. Chairman, the L-G-in-C always has the ability to rescind or modify a regulation. So if there is some evidence to say that this particular one has outlived its usefulness, then the L-G-in-C can simply respond accordingly.
C. Hansen: So the power to bring it back down to a level of four would be to rescind
I understand that the joint committees currently
[11:45]
Hon. D. Lovick: Currently the requirement is for a chair who represents either workers or the employer and a secretary who represents the opposite -- okay? If one is a worker representative, then the other is an employer representative. That's the way it breaks down. We're changing it instead to establish co-chairs -- again comparable to the constituency they represent. That's what is new here, and apparently it's consistent with other jurisdictions in Canada.C. Hansen: Thank you. I guess my concern is that when you start setting up co-chairs where there is no one authority to really provide the leadership for this committee, you could in fact
Hon. D. Lovick: The answer is yes. Consideration was indeed given, and I argue that the precise opposite argument to the one the member presents could be presented -- okay? This may indeed have precisely the opposite effect -- of strengthening and helping to aid and to abet that building of the new culture -- just as much as it could be argued that the opposite would occur. I think that's the classic moot point, as it were.
C. Hansen: One of the other concerns that I have in looking at the makeup of these joint committees is the fact that we're talking about four individuals. Later on, when we start talking about the way these committees function, if they come to any kind of an impasse or disagreement, that then goes back to the board. The process for a disagreement between, say, the two management reps and the two worker reps is to go to the board. My concern here is that we have built in a huge new workload for the WCB, which, as we all know, already has a pretty significant workload on its desk currently. What we are doing here by setting up a two-and-two process, with only the board as the arbitrator or the recourse to solve those kinds of disputes, is putting an enormous amount of new responsibility on the board to solve those problems.
I'm wondering if the minister has looked at the cost side of that. In fact, I was going to raise this particular issue of cost under a later section -- and we can defer it to then if that's appropriate. What is relevant to this section is whether or not we should be looking at a system whereby there is an unequal number -- where you have perhaps a management rep and an employee rep, and they in turn choose someone who is respected by all parties on the worksite and who may in fact be a management person or a non-management person -- to in some way set up a process that really facilitates their own problem-solving rather than having all of the problem-solving and more workload being dumped on the Workers Compensation Board.
[ Page 8109 ]
Hon. D. Lovick: I think it's sometimes difficult to find that one neutral person who will appeal to both sides. Indeed, I would remind the member that he has written into the record a number of times the expression about "the poisoned environment," so those two assertions are obviously contradictory.The board, just to deal with the specifics, has not made that recommendation saying that they are worried about this onerous new responsibility. My assumption is that they look upon this in similar fashion to me -- namely, that this is essentially a commonsense relationship. The last thing you would want in a committee, it would seem to me, is to say: "Oh, we're deadlocked. We have a hung jury of four people, and therefore we're going to go and ask the board on a regular basis to solve our problem." I think the likelihood of that happening is, frankly, pretty remote. I would hope it would be.
C. Hansen: I don't think we're just talking about deadlocks. There's a whole bunch of provisions in here where these committees can go back to the board for direction -- and in many cases, written direction. Some of the things that the committees can ask of the board are fairly substantive. I would be surprised, frankly, if it were the opinion of the officers of the WCB that there is not some significant additional workload coming to the board as a result of the workings of these joint committees. I guess what the minister is telling me is that this has not been looked at as a cost to the board, which, of course, goes to the compensation fund in turn. Is that the case?
Hon. D. Lovick: The legislation makes it clear that the board does indeed have, as part of its mandate, an obligation to assist joint committees in the event that they are having some difficulties. I am advised that the concern about this being an extra burden and an extra cost has not been adduced. Therefore no, I don't have any more specific information to present. I gather that there isn't a perceived problem there.
The Chair: Member, noting the time.
C. Hansen: Actually, you took the words right out of my mouth. Noting the time, I was going to move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.
Committee of Supply B, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Committee of Supply A, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. D. Streifel: In view of the time and the noise coming from the midsections of most members in here, it's lunchtime. I move this House do now adjourn.
Motion approved.
[Interruption.]
The Speaker: Sergeant-at-Arms.
Members, the motion has been heard and put. This House stands adjourned until 2 p.m.
The House adjourned at 11:54 a.m.
The committee met at 10:08 a.m.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
TRANSPORTATION AND HIGHWAYS
(continued)
G. Abbott: I'd like to take a couple of minutes to talk about a situation that has been of considerable concern in my riding for at least a couple of years now, and I know it's been of considerable concern to the Ministry of Transportation and Highways as well. I primarily want to put a statement on the record today. I'm not seeking to enter into a long argument or anything like that with the minister, and I'm sure he doesn't want to do that either.
The issue is, of course, the situation at Adams Lake. I do want to be very circumspect in my comments, because I know the negotiation process continues at Adams Lake. The last thing I would want to do is upset in any way the successful conduct of those negotiations. I do want to say, as well, that the entire discussion and unfolding of things over the past couple of years -- at least since I've been the MLA -- has been very non-partisan in the way the issue has been conducted there. I've certainly appreciated that, and I hope the government side has appreciated the non-partisan nature of the discussions there.
In particular, I want to commend two members of the minister's staff for the work they have done with respect to Adams Lake. One is the assistant deputy minister, Dan Doyle, and the other is district highways manager, Dan Williams. Both of those gentlemen have been very straightforward and very informative with respect to the situation there, and I do appreciate the very straight-up way that I've been dealt with on this matter. And I appreciate the efforts that they have extended towards attempting to resolve the situation.
While I obviously don't want to in any way prejudice negotiations, I do not want to be silent lest anyone interpret my silence as satisfaction with the current situation, because it is not possible to be satisfied with the current situation. It is a very important issue which I think continues to cry out for resolution. The residents on the east side of Adams Lake had the access to their properties disrupted about two years ago. It's over two years ago now; it's been two and a half years, or more now, since their lives were turned upside down. Since that time they have had to endure tension and insecurity in their lives, which obviously should not be acceptable to anyone in our society.
The people on the east side of Adams Lake, in years past, made substantial investments in property and homes, and they made those investments in good faith, understanding that they had safe, secure and permanent access to their homes and properties. Of course, they have since discovered that their access was not in fact safe, secure and permanent and that through a series of unfortunate circumstances and failures on the part of government -- and I'm not pointing at the provincial one here particularly but at failure by governments -- their access has not been secure. There's certainly plenty of blame to share around on this, and there has been
[ Page 8110 ]
more than one court event on this, as well, that suggested that the people have not been to this point well served by their governments with respect to the access issue.What people at Adams Lake want is straightforward enough. They want permanent and secure access to their properties. It appears that the only way in which that permanent secure access can be secured is through a section 35 transfer, and I know that the negotiating committee of the Ministry of Transportation and Highways has been working very hard in the past months to secure that section 35 transfer. Regrettably, the committee has been unable to achieve that section 35 transfer to this point, but it certainly must remain the goal of the negotiating committee. Without that there will be ongoing insecurity in the lives of the people at Adams Lake.
What I want to do is urge the minister in the strongest terms to have his ministry provide the priority and the resources that will be necessary to bring the current negotiations to a successful conclusion. As I have noted, the recent months and years have been very difficult for the residents of Adams Lake. They have had enormous frustrations over a situation which they have had little or no control over -- and obviously, with respect to the access itself, they have no control at all. I think that through these difficult months and years the residents there have shown remarkable patience in waiting for a successful resolution of this situation. I do hope that the patience that they have demonstrated so thoroughly will be rewarded in the foreseeable future with a successful resolution. I don't underestimate the difficulty of the issue that needs to be resolved here, but I do hope the minister can bring the priority and resources to the negotiations that will bring about that successful conclusion.
In closing, I want to make a brief reference to one of my constituents who has probably put this matter in better perspective for me than anyone else has: Chuck Williams, who is an elder of the Adams Lake Indian band. He is a veteran of World War II, and he's a man for whom I have enormous respect. Chuck had friends who died in World War II, and his suggestion is that the new bridge at Adams Lake be dedicated to the memory of the aboriginal people who fought and died in World War II and in World War I. Chuck believes that the bridge could be symbolic of a reconciliation of cultures and could also be symbolic of a closing of division between peoples, which has been the great problem at Adams Lake.
[10:15]
Conventional wisdom would suggest that details around the design and naming and so on of a bridge are the last details that one deals with in a negotiating process, but in this case perhaps it should be one of the first things brought forward by the negotiating committee: a clear, open and honest offer to dedicate the bridge in the way that Chuck suggests. I think that the sentiments of the negotiations to come need to be the kind that have been offered by Chuck Williams and others. It goes to the heart of the spirit of negotiations that will be necessary for successful resolution of this situation.Again, I commend the minister and staff for the work that has been done to date, and I want to wish them all the best in bringing about a successful conclusion.
Hon. H. Lali: Before I make a comment, I want to point out that with me today are Claire Dansereau, my associate deputy minister; Dan Doyle, the assistant deputy minister for highway operations; Har Singh, ADM for management services and motor vehicles; John Dyble, ADM for planning and major projects; and Bob Buckingham, director of finance and administration.
I want to thank the hon. member opposite for those comments that he has made. The Adams Lake issue is a very, very complex and very emotional issue. I also want to point out that it has to be handled in a very careful and sensitive manner.
I want to praise the hon. member's efforts over the last months, as he has been fairly intimately involved in the consultations and meetings and even the negotiations that have been taking place. I know that it becomes that much more difficult when the issue is in your own back yard, but certainly the efforts of the hon. member have to be applauded. It is one those issues that cuts across all parties lines. Whether we are government or opposition, it's one area where we are trying to come to a resolution in a cooperative fashion. Certainly I recognize the role that the hon. member is playing. My staff have had nothing but good words to say about the hon. member throughout this whole particular issue.
As he is well aware, staff from my ministry, in consultation with the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs and the Shuswap Lake Indian bands, are working towards solving the issue of access for local residents in that area. My ministry has also been meeting regularly with the local residents for their information and their input; it is fundamentally important to a resolution of this particular issue. The ministry and the Shuswap Lake Indian bands remain positive that a mutually cooperative effort from all concerned can achieve an agreeable solution.
The province currently is reviewing a comprehensive counterproposal from the Adams Lake first nation and will be responding in early June, and finalizing by July 6.
G. Wilson: I'm going to try to be fairly brief today. I'd like to ask the minister a series of questions, starting with the southern extremity of the riding, which is the Gibsons-Langdale area, and going to the end of the road, which is Lund. I'd also like to get some clarification on some of the issues on the islands that are in my area.
I wonder if we could just start by having the minister give me an update on the status of the legal case, TNL v. the government -- or the government v. TNL -- with respect to the Gibsons bypass. Where are we at with that? Has that been resolved? If so, what was the reconciliation?
Hon. H. Lali: The issue is before the court, so I can't comment on that.
G. Wilson: That in itself is an answer: we are finally in court. I know that there was a fair bit of discussion, trying to resolve this to avoid court action. If the issue is in front of the courts, then perhaps we could talk a little bit about the bypass as a project.
The people on the Sunshine Coast had an expectation that once phase 1, 2 and 3 were constructed, the bypass would, over time, be extended to actually bypass Gibsons. Right now we've bypassed a corner, which is okay, but we haven't actually bypassed the town of Gibsons. I wonder if the minister might give me an update on the projections for further land acquisition and engineering design work and for when we can expect to see work reconvene on that bypass.
Hon. H. Lali: I realize that this is a very, very important issue for the hon. member and for his constituents. I've been minister for a little over three months. I'm reviewing all projects and will then determine what should or shouldn't go
[ Page 8111 ]
ahead in the future, given the limitations of funding. Because of that, I can't give any specific answer to the hon. member right now.G. Wilson: That's one of the politest ways I've heard of someone saying: "Nothing is happening. It's not going ahead, so settle down."
Can I just talk for a moment
The Gibsons bypass section, the section of road that comes down to the ferry terminal, has as a safety runoff lane on the extreme right-hand side -- a section of road that then goes into deep gravel to stop trucks. The problem is that we have had completely unacceptable ferry lineups, to the extent that on the holiday weekend, as the minister may know, over the course of the day there were over 2,000 vehicles waiting to get on that ferry. That's a huge problem. If they line them up the highway up to the right-hand section of the road, they block the emergency runoff. If they line them up to the left-hand side, they prohibit people who are trying to access the left-hand turn to get out to Port Mellon. If they run them on the lower road, you're going to have every resident who believed the bypass was going to alleviate this problem down your neck.
I wonder if there is any discussion going on with the B.C. Ferry Corporation to use their considerable overflow parking as holding areas for vehicles that are waiting for these ferries, until such time as the minister responsible for ferries actually puts another vessel on and we can alleviate the problem.
Hon. H. Lali: There have been no specific discussions with B.C. Ferries, but I think it's a good idea that is worthy of pursuing. I also want to point out, on the hon. member's invite to, I guess, come up there on a drive-through
G. Wilson: If that's about as much of a commitment as I'll get today, then I'll accept it; that's great.
Let me move further north. If we're assuming, then, that the Gibsons bypass is somewhat on hold -- and I take it from the minister that given limited funds, we're not seeing a great deal of action on that -- the next major construction that's occurring on the highway as you travel north is the Rat Portage Hill project. There has been a considerable amount of local concern around the tendering process, on how that project was tendered. I wonder if the minister might just clarify for the record exactly how that tendering took place. It is my understanding that it was tendered on the Internet; that it was tendered with a very short closing date; that there were a number of bidders who were not aware that that's the new tendering process and, as a result, didn't know that they should bid on it; and that it went to a contractor who eventually, I understand -- certainly with respect to the paving -- couldn't do the work and ended up subcontracting to a local contractor at a higher price than the local contractor bid. I wonder if the minister might just clarify that, because that's causing considerable concern in the community.
Hon. H. Lali: We discovered that the Purchasing Commission has this interesting system of tendering. So we tried that. It was the first one to try it. We also discovered that it doesn't work, so we're going back to the old system that we had before.
G. Wilson: That's nice to hear, because there was a lot of concern about that process. It's good that we're going back.
With respect to the Rat Portage Hill project, we're very close to completion on that project now. Yet I understand that there are some cost overruns. I wonder if the minister might just tell us where we are with it financially, whether or not it came in on budget or whether it is over budget.
Hon. H. Lali: Unfortunately, we don't have that level of detail. But certainly staff will give the details to the hon. member at a later date.
G. Wilson: All right.
If we can continue north, then, from Rat Portage Hill, the next major project -- which I understand has approval but now is going through some redesign work -- is the entryway that is essentially on Sechelt Indian government district land as we enter into Sechelt. There is a very large shopping centre development project that the Sechelt Indian government district is proposing. Access onto and egress from the main highway in that interim section is very bad. I understand that there has been some approval for widening, for four-laning and for proper access and egress.
The Sechelt Indian government district tell me that part of what they intend to do with their shopping centre development is to use the project as a training project for members of their community, so that there can be an apprenticeship training program in the construction, the clearing of land, the design and so on. I wonder if there's been any discussion with respect to highway construction to see if there can be a coordinated training program, so that first nations people who currently lack training might be able to benefit from the training and the construction of that section of road which is on Sechelt Indian government land.
[10:30]
Hon. H. Lali: I want to thank the hon. member for that suggestion. It appears to be a good idea and something that the ministry should explore.G. Wilson: I think that the Sechelt Indian government district will be pleased to hear that, because they're a very progressive band, a group that is trying very hard to develop opportunities for members of their community, especially training opportunities that would provide long-term employment potential. Clearly, I think that there is some opportunity there. A number of local businesses are keen to work in a joint venture; a number of local contractors would be keen to work in a joint venture. I think it could be win-win if we can pull something together along those lines.
I wonder if we might just continue north to the issue around the closure of the Pender Harbour works yard, which was a very volatile issue that the Minister of Highways found
[ Page 8112 ]
out about when 300 or 400 members of the community roasted one of his employees in a community hall. I was there to make sure the basting was at least fair. Could the minister tell us: is that issue now resolved? Is that works yard going to remain? There are persistent rumours that there is still some idea that we should close the Pender Harbour works yard.Hon. H. Lali: Yes, it will remain.
G. Wilson: The next item I need to pass on is actually a vote of thanks to the minister and particularly to Mr. Doyle for the speedy work in getting wildlife fencing up along a section of road next to the Pender Harbour Golf Course, about which a few people had some concern. Ironically, none of the residents had a particular concern about it. In fact, all of them were delighted. There were some people on the wildlife side in different ministries
I would also say that the contractor did quite a remarkable job. If the minister does come up on this trip, one of the things we could look at that truly astounded me was the ability to cut the right-of-way and to do so with such a minimal footprint on the landscape. My biggest concern was that there would be sort of a swath of clearcut and that it would cause a lot of people concern, because a lot of people don't like to see trees taken out next to the highway. The work that was done was outstanding; it really was. I commend that contractor, and I think that we've hit on somebody who has a real expertise there.
Let me move up, then, to the next major area, given that I don't anticipate that there's much money to do any straightening on the goat trail, which is the northern section of the highway. The minister will see that when he gets up there. My guess is that because of the blasting and road construction costs, we're not likely to see much, and we'll have to live with the goat trail for a little while longer.
On the other side of the ferry, moneys were approved -- I believe it was somewhere in the neighbourhood of $3 million to $4 million -- to do straightening, widening and paving. That project seems to be on-again, off-again. We have done some work, but it is not by any means completed yet. There was some discussion as to whether or not we should actually continue to do some road alignment work prior to paving. I was asked about that, and my advice was that we should do that, because I think we have a better opportunity to get money for paving than we do for straightening and widening roads. I could be wrong on that, but hopefully not. What I'd like from the minister today is a commitment that that project is finally going to get completed, so that the people of Powell River don't worry about that money being sort of taken away from them.
Hon. H. Lali: First of all, I want to thank the hon. member for his very, very positive comments regarding the wildlife fencing -- also the ministry staff and the contractor for a job really well done.
On the particular issue of the road, I'll take the hon. member's comments into consideration. I agree with some of the points that he has raised in terms of the issue of safety of the travelling public. Though the southern half of the province hasn't been released yet, I'll take that into consideration as we deliberate.
G. Wilson: I'm assuming that the $3 million to $4 million that was approved hasn't been taken away. I think it was tendered over two years. What we'd like to know is that that money is still there, that paving is still happening and that the road is going to be completed -- because we tend to lose it to Sea to Sky and to all kinds of other crazy projects that this government has in mind.
Hon. H. Lali: As the hon. member knows, there are no crazy projects that this government has in mind.
Previous members have asked specific questions regarding commitments in this year's budget. I can't do that; I haven't done it. So I just ask the member to be a little bit patient, as some of the other opposition -- and government -- members are in terms of what projects will or won't be going ahead in this year's budget in the southern half of the province. The member will be receiving his briefing book after the announcements are made.
G. Wilson: I appreciate that. But let me go back to last year's budget. Let me go back to the money that was committed last year. Did we spend all of that $3 million or $4 million? Or did we spend only some of it and have it
Hon. H. Lali: We spent most of the money that was committed last year on the specific project. As far as this year is concerned, we'll just have to wait until the announcement is made.
G. Wilson: Well, that's disappointing, because we didn't get as far with the money that we did spend as we had hoped we would. I think many people expect that that road has some priority. It is a dangerous road; it's a road where there have been a number of fatalities. I know that we shouldn't be building roads on the basis of the number of deaths per number of kilometres travelled, but it is a dangerous section of highway. The people of Powell River have been enormously patient. I think that it is a project that needs to be completed. So I would urge the minister, in making his announcement, to make it as early as possible and be as generous as practical in that section.
Let me move, then, up to Lund and that north section. There are two projects that the Ministry of Highways is involved with. One is the straightening of some sections of road, one corner in particular where a land swap was to be made. It involved B.C. Tel; it involved Ministry of Highways; it involved some residents. The overburden on the side of the road, the rock that had to be blasted, was roughly the equivalent of the fill needed to fill in a gully. It is an extremely dangerous corner, one at which there have been a number of fatalities. There have been a number of serious accidents. The camber on the road is all wrong -- even though I know that the local Highways people will tell you that it's because people travel that road with excessive speed. When 40 kilometres an hour becomes excessive on a main highway, I mean, come on. This is getting kind of silly. We need that done, and I just wonder what the status is of that. It seemed that it was a relatively inexpensive project that could have been done through day-labour contracting. All parties seemed to be keen to make it work.
Hon. H. Lali: Unfortunately we don't have the details on that. I'll get staff to get back to the hon. member.
[ Page 8113 ]
G. Wilson: Okay. I just have two other questions, then, with respect to these estimates. On the Lund section a considerable amount of work has happened. The Ministry of Highways has been extremely active in making sure that they have personnel coming into Lund to talk about parking, the problems of inadequate road shoulders and doing some turnaround work. We've had some design people into Lund.The minister may not be familiar with Lund. Lund is the end of the road on the mainland. It's always nice to remind people that Powell River-Sunshine Coast is on the mainland. We are not on an island. This is mainland British Columbia, even though we're connected by ferry. In every other mainland community that's connected by ferry, it's free ferries. Isn't that ironic? All of the other interior mainland ferries are free. It's only the island ferries that have tariffs. However, I understand that the minister can't do much about that except argue for it in cabinet, and I'm sure he will do that.
Let me come back to Lund. Lund is the end of the road, and as a terminus, it is also the staging area for people who drive their cars, leave their cars and then go to Savary Island, Cortes, Hernando, a whole series of other islands, Desolation Sound and points north. And so we have a serious problem with this terminus.
Now, Lund is involved in two fairly significant projects. One is the expansion of a breakwater, which I'm working with them on, to expand their harbour. The second is to work to try and find a way to build in a shuttle service so that we'll set up some parking area so that people can be shuttled to and from the staging areas. What I'd like from the minister is a commitment to continue the highways engineering work that will be necessary to make that terminus work. Otherwise it becomes so congested that it is a serious fire hazard. Fire trucks, ambulances and other emergency vehicles will not be able to access the waterfront area should there be a fire or a disaster, because they can't get through. So if I can get that commitment, we'll press on in that community.
Hon. H. Lali: The hon. member has my commitment.
G. Wilson: Well, that's good news. Savary Island, a very small island -- basically a large sandbank -- is an area that has been oversold in real estate terms. If it were to be developed to its fullest extent, I think it would be well over capacity. The difficulty with it is that the people have gone on to Savary Island, and they have pushed roads to where they need to push roads. Because it's sand, it's relatively easy to construct a road in the summertime, which becomes quickly eroded in the winter because there's very little to hold a road in place.
The other problem with it is that the roads don't necessarily run on the rights-of-way. There are all kinds of examples of trespass. The roads are not built to legal standard. Vehicles that are on Savary Island are frequently not licensed, or if they are licensed, they're often not insured. I guess that's part of being on the island. People believe that if you can get a car there by sea truck, once you're over on the island, that's it -- you're gone; you're out of the modern world. I mean, you have no light; you have no electricity. Everybody is on wells. There is no sewer system, and so on. So it's a very rural area.
Now the problem we face here is that the Ministry of Transportation and Highways -- the Ministry of Crown Lands -- is at some point going to have to make some decisions about whether or not we actually realign the roads so that they run where they are supposed to run. If you take the survey, you'll see that Vancouver Boulevard, for example, which is a main road on Savary Island, does not run where it's supposed to run. There are other roads that are Highways roads that are actually on private property, and there is private property that has encroached on highway access and rights-of-way.
Now the solution -- and when the minister comes to visit, maybe we'll have a chance to actually get over to Savary Island and take a look -- I think is to set an island standard for Savary Island that legalizes the existing right-of-way and that reduces the width of road on the island, the legal standard for road, to something less than 66
So this is an issue that needs to be resolved, because sooner or later
[10:45]
We are going to have to do something about that. I think we have to do it with a minimum amount of cost and impact to the islanders. I think the way to do it is for the Ministry of Transportation and Highways to commit that they will come onboard with an island plan that will legalize the existing rights-of-way and establish a made-on-the-island standard for roads.Hon. H. Lali: We've had an ongoing dialogue with the Islands Trust and agreed that there should be a separate island standard as opposed to the regular standard that is there. So certainly we can continue on that path.
G. Wilson: But as I'm sure the minister knows, Savary Island is not part of the Islands Trust. They're not a member of the Islands Trust. I understand the Islands Trust standards. I'm not even sure that that will apply to what exists.
Savary Island is a very unique situation. Right now the Ministry of Transportation and Highways has an obligation, which they are meeting and fulfilling, to make sure that those roads are passable. But I think that the truth of it is that there is going to have to be some way of limiting the number of vehicles on the island. That's number one. I don't know how you do that legally, because if those roads are provincial highways you can't somehow say that only so many vehicles can travel on that road at any given time. It may be that vehicles are restricted to the number of full-time residents. That would have to be done statutorily, because you would have to bring in legislation to make that so. You can't curtail somebody's right to use the road.
But if everybody who owns a summer cabin, or if everybody who owns property who builds a summer cabin, decides all of a sudden that they're going to have a vehicle on Savary Island, we've got a completely unworkable situation. There's no way that island can withstand it. So there's going to have to be a Savary Island plan which will include a highways plan. Maybe if the minister could commit to having some members of his staff sit down with me and the regional district representative -- as well with as with representatives from the island
We are going to have to deal with this situation soon. We've turned a blind eye. Certainly in the seven years that I've been elected as an MLA, we've always said: "Next year,
[ Page 8114 ]
next year, next yearBefore we get into a huge, complex, expensive and very divisive legal battle, I think that the solution is to have a Savary Island plan which would have this ministry's commitment in legislation, so that we can put in place something that is workable for all those people who own property on the island.
Hon. H. Lali: The ministry is open to discussion with people. It's actually very flexible in its approach. I will take the hon. member's suggestion and have a meeting with him and staff to work out some sort of a solution that people can live with.
G. Wilson: Well, that's great.
I just have one other question on islands. It has to do with Gambier and the boat ramp. Actually, it's not a boat ramp; it's kind of like an access ramp. At the moment, what exists on the island is sort of a flat piece of beach where an upland private owner has allowed vehicles to be on-loaded and off-loaded from a sea truck or a barge. Now, B.C. Tel, B.C. Hydro and all of the service vehicles that get on and off the island to go and service the community of Gambier have been using this flat piece of beach. There are a couple of problems with it. One is that it is eroding. It is now quite unsafe. It is not a suitable way to continue to do business.
There is a section of land at the conclusion of a highway right-of-way to the water where the residents would like to construct a proper ramp. Now, the regional district is prepared to assist, but not with money, because they claim they don't have cash. I understand that generally speaking, under normal circumstances the Ministry of Highways is not involved in funding or putting money into the construction of a ramp. However, these are unusual circumstances. This is not a normal circumstance.
Since the section of the ramp that they wish to construct is right at the end of a highway right-of-way, and since it is used predominantly by vehicles getting on and off the island to access the island for services such as hydro and B.C. Tel -- and there's a whole bunch of different ones -- it strikes me that there would be a nominal, minimal cost and that this minister would be well looked upon if he decided that he would assist the islanders in constructing or helping to construct that ramp. So maybe the minister might commit some money, small amounts of money -- $50,000 or $60,000 worth of money.
Hon. H. Lali: Again, I will take the hon. member's comments into consideration. The ministry is always trying very hard to meet its own core priorities. But in terms of the particular issue raised, the ministry is willing to do some sort of a partnering whereby if the ministry commits to do some engineering, then perhaps the people in the regional district can come up with some funding to build it.
G. Wilson: Well, I'd hope that that would work too. It seems that everybody is ready to provide assistance in kind, but not in cash.
My last comment is to offer the minister a deal. I don't usually do this, but let me offer him a deal. There are a couple of projects that I think are underway in our area. One is completion of Rat Portage, and the other is this new entry into the Sunshine Coast. If this member is able to demonstrate where the Ministry of Highways can save $60,000 on one of those two projects, would the minister commit to take that 60 grand and put it into the boat ramp on Gambier Island?
Hon. H. Lali: I think we should talk in some more detail with the hon. member on that.
G. Wilson: I'd be delighted to talk in that detail. I look forward to the negotiation.
B. Barisoff: I just wanted to bring up a couple of issues. I brought up one when estimates first started with BCTFA about the Vaseux Lake corner and ICBC. The hon. minister indicated that this was a long-term plan, that it was way into the books. I'd like to bring to his attention that there was another serious accident there on the long weekend. Fortunately, there were no fatalities. But it's another indication that this section of highway is costing -- to whichever arm of the government you want to call it, whether it's ICBC or the Ministry of Transportation and Highways or the BCTFA -- money.
I just want to know whether the minister could give a commitment to bring this higher up on the priority list of doing something, considering the fact that if in the near future we're not as fortunate -- or unfortunate -- as the member from Cranbrook is to have a casino built in our riding
Hon. H. Lali: I appreciate the hon. member's comments. Certainly in terms of priorities for the future we'll take the hon. member's comments into consideration and see if we can come up with some solutions.
B. Barisoff: I appreciate that, because I have brought it up in estimates for the last number of years, and it is that whole section. I know it's an expensive section, but if there was some cooperation with the Ministry of Environment, some of that rock could be dropped along the edge of the lake and would probably alleviate a lot of the cost.
One other question that I brought up earlier -- and which you said to bring up at this point in time -- is Highway 33. I've contacted the councils in Midway, Greenwood and Grand Forks. The definite trend is traffic flowing over Highway 33 or coming back into the Okanagan, especially going up that road into Kelowna. I'm now getting the stats from the Kelowna General Hospital to find out how many people actually use it just for that one purpose. I wonder if there's any upgrading that's going to take place on Highway 33 from Rock Creek to Kelowna.
Hon. H. Lali: We haven't announced the rehab moneys for the southern half of the province yet. We just have to wait for the announcement sometime next week.
B. Barisoff: I don't think that it's a matter of waiting for the announcement. I wonder whether something is happen-
[ Page 8115 ]
ing there. It sounds good with the fact that there's a possibility -- if we are waiting for an announcement -- that something is going to be done there. I have had calls from a lot of loggers that something called the Big White hill slows traffic down a lot; it creates a lot of problem in that area. If we have to wait for an announcement, I'm hoping that the minister is indicating by his comments that there will be an announcement that something is going to be upgraded in that area. The minister is smiling, so we're hoping that that's an indication that something is going to happen in that area.Carrying on with some of that area, I'd like to thank the minister for some of the road work that's been done in the Midway area. I have brought that up in estimates for the last couple of years, and there is definite progress. They have taken that bad corner out. It's a real asset to what's taking place in that area. I just wonder whether there's any indication of the section on what would be the east side of Midway, from Midway to Greenwood, and those turns there. As I indicated before, there's a lot of traffic that's starting to move towards the Okanagan.
Hon. H. Lali: All of the issues the hon. member has raised are very important issues, and they have been on the priority list for the region. Certainly in terms of what will or won't be done, it obviously depends on the amount of resources that are at my disposal. But I want to thank the hon. member for having raised this issue of safety again, as well as the other issues that he's asked in his previous two questions.
B. Barisoff: I appreciate the fact that resources are limited in the province and that efficiencies have to take place. I think the three issues I've mentioned are of a safety nature, particularly the Vaseux corner. It's something that could be done in conjunction with ICBC, and we could save a lot of money.
One of the last questions I'd like to ask is about the status of the weigh scales in Osoyoos. I know there have been letters in the newspaper. Some people are concerned about whether they do want them or not. I want to know where we're at with the entire project: whether the minister has talked to the Osoyoos town council and whether they actually want them to go there, or what the situation is and what the status of them actually is.
[11:00]
Hon. H. Lali: Weigh scale issues are now under ICBC, which is under the Ministry of Employment and Investment.S. Hawkins: I wish to raise an issue on behalf of a constituent. I wonder if I can pass a map over so you know what I'm talking about. It's with respect to a lot owned by Mr. Chris Gotte, 1302 Green Bay Road, lot 10. Apparently there was a meeting in October of this past year. The ministry informed him and a group of neighbours that a utility right-of-way had to be taken back. Apparently there was some encroachment by the neighbour onto that right-of-way. Mr. Gaudy was also informed that there were going to be no services provided. If you look at the map, you can see he's kind of landlocked into a corner at the end of Green Bay Road. Of course, being the Okanagan, we have our hard winters and our light winters. Last year wasn't so bad; the year before was a fairly heavy winter. Mr Gaudy is wondering what remedy he has in getting the services he needs onto the part of the road where he lives. I understand the Ministry of Highways is saying that they are not going to provide services to it anymore.
Hon. H. Lali: I want to thank the hon. member for raising this issue. Unfortunately we can't respond to the detailed nature of this particular issue. Certainly if the member is willing to send some details to my staff, we'll respond as quickly as we possibly can.
S. Hawkins: Thank you. I will do that. I know correspondence has gone back and forth from my office to the local office, but we'll get it sent down to the ministry.
I see Mr. Dan Doyle is there. Again, I want to personally thank you for the help you gave for Westside Road. We certainly appreciate that.
Another issue, then, is that earlier this month Macdonald Creek flooded. I know our critic has raised this in a sort of tangential way. I'm wondering what the policy is for the Ministry of Highways in burying road kill next to a watershed. The creek flooded, and about 16 carcasses that were buried by the Ministry of Highways were released into the creek, and the residents there face quite a problem now. I know they've been on a boil advisory anyway for the last five years, but that's their source of drinking water, and they are quite concerned about the health hazard that's now posed to them because of the carcasses being released into the creek. Apparently they were buried close to that watershed.
Hon. H. Lali: I take this issue fairly seriously. I will ask my ministry staff to investigate and look into it carefully, so they can provide the hon. member with appropriate answers.
S. Hawkins: I'll look forward to the answers. The constituents are quite concerned and are asking me for answers, so I look forward to getting something from the minister in a timely manner.
R. Thorpe: I just have one quick question today on the road sign issue that has been reinstated in British Columbia. Over the weekend it came to my attention that, as this saga had unfolded, the application and implementation of new signs had been put on hold in some parts of the province. Therefore, now that it's a go-ahead again, I believe we have somewhat of a backlog of signs going up. As the major part of the tourism season begins here right now, could we have some commitment from the minister that the resources of the ministry will be put to use to get those signs up across the province as quickly as possible? Most of these are small, small business operators in British Columbia who cannot afford to lose business at this time.
Hon. H. Lali: To the best of the ministry's ability, we will endeavour to do that.
D. Symons: Each year the B.C. Chamber of Commerce puts out a policy booklet that they develop from feedback from the various chambers of commerce, and one section of it deals with transportation and highways. I'm just going to read a few items out of there and ask about the current status of them.
One of them -- and it's very close to my riding -- talks about the Massey Tunnel expansion. The concern is that that tunnel has now reached capacity, and it's really going to need
[ Page 8116 ]
Can the minister give me some idea of the future plan? Do you have a horizon where you're looking into the future for projects? Where might one for the Massey Tunnel fit in?Hon. H. Lali: It's a TFA issue, actually, so I can ask staff to talk to the member directly on that specific issue.
D. Symons: We're going to get into that problem also, I guess.
Another issue that relates to my riding and elsewhere as well is the HOV lanes. The suggestion is that HOV lanes aren't in themselves an answer to all the problems, and yet the transportation policy that came out in 1995 for the province seemed to show a lot of HOV lanes networking the lower mainland. Only a few of them have been put in, and you're indeed constructing one along Highway 1 at the current time. But I'm wondering, as things stand there right now, having the Highway 99 and the Delta areas as van pools with six or more
I watch that highway, and I watched it again last Friday going home and driving along in the opposite direction. In the time that I went the roughly three miles, five kilometres, from the tunnel to Westminster Highway, I saw three buses in that HOV lane -- one of them was one of these small minibuses carrying tourists; the other two were B.C. Transit buses -- no vans and one car, which was probably driving illegally in the lane.
I've been told in the past that the reason we can't do this -- make it three or more -- is because of the configuration when you get near the Massey Tunnel. There's an approach where vehicles in the HOV lanes go off and they actually hit a traffic light that then feeds them into the traffic that comes off the Steveston Highway. There's only a certain number of spaces back there before you get to the point where operating this traffic light will be interfering with highway traffic. Is it egress when it goes off the road? Anyway, when they go off, you'd have problems of interference then if the backup gets too long. But watching vehicles go by, I have not seen the likelihood that there would be so many vehicles in that area -- which would probably hold ten vehicles including the buses and trucks and whatnot -- for any one change of that traffic light that that would be a problem. So I'm just curious why you would not consider trying it.
You could put a higher limit on and keep lowering it, until you find that your capacity for handling them on these egresses and entrances and so forth becomes a problem. But I'm quite sure that it would be easy to accommodate HOV -- where there is a true HOV, rather than a van pool -- on that particular portion of the highway.
Hon. H. Lali: That whole issue of HOV lanes and the number of occupants, the number of people in the particular cars, is being thoroughly studied by the TFA. They're looking at the entire spectrum of HOV lanes, not just Highway 99. So we're waiting for some recommendations to come forward from them.
D. Symons: Just very closely related to that -- I've asked this question before also, but we have a new minister now -- I wonder if you might consider allow motorcycles on HOV and bus lanes. It would remove them from the main mass of traffic going in the other lanes, particularly during rush hour. The HOV and bus lanes are currently not that occupied, so having motorcycles in there mixed in with those HOV vehicles would be more of a safety feature for them than a danger.
Hon. H. Lali: To be honest with the hon. member, this is the first time I've actually heard a recommendation regarding motorcycles in HOV lanes. On the surface of it, it seems worthy of consideration. We'll look into it.
D. Symons: I know people in the BCCOM organization -- motorcyclists -- would be quite interested in that particular project, as they've approached me on that issue.
One more: I gather this is somewhere in the works, and I just would like confirmation that things are moving along smoothly on the Morey Channel bridge which connects Sea Island to Richmond and feeds quickly onto Highway 99. I gather we're going to have -- very soon, I would hope -- a one-way couplet there with a new bridge built to get into Bridgeport Road. Can the minister just give me an update on where that's at?
Hon. H. Lali: I believe the hon. member is referring to what is called the Sea Island connector. Again, it's a TFA issue, so the estimates have already been canvassed.
D. Symons: I just thought the minister might be up on what's happening on TFA, because it is connected, in a sense, to his ministry as well. But that's always the case.
I'm reading in the Similkameen Spotlight of March 12 of last year that there was a road collapse on the Coalmont road on March 5. At that time, the minister was quoted
Hon. H. Lali: I want to point out that the MLA for the local area has been thoroughly on top of these issues ever since he got elected. We're still doing geotechnical analysis on that particular collapse that took place. We haven't come to any resolve as to what is the best way to look at it. It's still an ongoing issue, and we'll let the member know once we've decided.
D. Symons: I'm pleased to hear that the MLA for the area is working on the project. I'm sure that his constituents will appreciate that effort. I realize that some of the roads in areas where the soil is unstable are very difficult for the ministry to deal with. There are two or three areas in the province where that is the case, I believe.
Just another interesting
[ Page 8117 ]
Hon. H. Lali: I hope the member isn't insinuating that the hon. person is moving beyond hope as she gets closer. I'll get staff to take a look at that and correct the signage that has been pointed out.D. Symons: I would never want to indicate that the minister or anybody is beyond hope. Indeed, I know that this particular minister does live beyond Hope, and it's a very nice place to live, I gather.
[11:15]
Interjection.D. Symons: On the other side of hell, yes -- Hells Gate.
I have another item from a man in the Fraser Valley who shows some interest in the RV sani-stations -- in particular, the one at the Cole Road and Bradner Road rest area along Highway 1 -- somewhere near Abbotsford, I believe. I gather there was a study done by the district highways manager on those particular sani-stations, and some recommendations were brought in. I'm wondering, first, about who is responsible for the operation of these sani-stations and rest areas. Is it the Ministry of Highways?
Hon. H. Lali: Ministry.
D. Symons: It seems that part of the problem
Hon. H. Lali: That is, actually, a fairly major problem that the hon. member has raised. Washington State has similar problems. They've had to shut down two of their sewer plants as a result of that. They thought about setting up security cameras at these sites, but unfortunately they get vandalized. Washington State is actually looking seriously at public-private partnerships in terms of the whole issue the member has raised.
D. Symons: I suppose in that sense you mean that they would have staff there who could monitor what's happening at the station, which could add some costs. But maybe in the long run it might be worth it if we prevent pollution.
The gentleman has made two recommendations which I'll pass along. One is outside the purview of the ministry, but I'll pass it along anyway. The other one is within the purview of what you could do. He's suggesting that before people who have dry cleaners and so forth can get a business licence, they must have a non-cancellable contract with a waste management firm for the disposal of their waste materials. This would be at least one way of tracing where these contaminants might come from. Other firms could also be in that place. Now I know that's not yours, but it would solve the problem of it ending up on your doorstep.
The other one is that you might be able to install floodlights -- not cameras; I realize that they could be vandalized. You could put floodlights in with sensors that would turn on as somebody comes in. A lot of this happens at nighttime, and that would at least be a discouragement. He also makes the comment, though, that by discouraging people from going into a sani-station to dump these illegal things, they'll do it elsewhere, in places that could be even more damaging than putting it in there. It's a difficult problem.
Hon. H. Lali: We are interested in all options and solutions. If the hon. member has some material that he might want to pass on to ministry staff, we'd be more than willing to look at those suggestions.
D. Symons: A different minister but the same problem
One of the first things
Hon. H. Lali: As a new minister, I'm actually interested in looking at this issue. The Minister of Agriculture and Food has also brought that issue forward, so I want to thank the hon. member for raising it as well. We'll look into it.
D. Symons: I have one more question. It does involve a legal action, so I'm going to stay away from the court case that I think is currently there. It deals with VSA Highways Maintenance Ltd., and it's versing various people that have connections to the ministry. Just to avoid the actual case that's being discussed here, I'll ask: does the ministry have rules of confidentiality regarding information that it may have -- or that these people in the ministry may have -- relating to its maintenance or other contractors?
Hon. H. Lali: The short answer is yes, we do have rules. We're bound by the rules of the freedom-of-information and protect-of-privacy commissioner, as well as by the rules that govern the court system, obviously. Also, in terms of the public sector, they have their own oath and also a standard by which they take office.
D. Symons: I would gather from the minister's answer that an official employee of the ministry could not, then, take information he knows about one of the contractors working for the ministry, or somebody who is applying to be a contractor, and use that information and pass it along to another
[ Page 8118 ]
contractor or pass it on to the union bargaining unit which might be bargaining with that particular contractor. Would that be outside or be contained in what you said? Would there be a penalty for a breach of that? And could the person be dismissed for a breach of that particular confidentiality?Hon. H. Lali: From my understanding, the hon. member's questions are getting quite close to the nature of the case, so I don't think I should answer.
I. Chong: I'm pleased to be able to participate in a minor way in the ministry estimates. I apologize to the minister that I have hadn't had an opportunity to read all of the Hansard from the last week, but I know that the issue of devolution of highways has occurred for many municipalities. In particular, I would like to mention some concerns I have for the municipalities I represent -- Oak Bay and a part of Saanich.
In Oak Bay, there have not been any devolutions, and I'm fortunate that that has been the case. But in the municipality of Saanich, there has been devolution of some highways: in particular, two roads -- West Saanich and Royal Oak -- and then the Trans-Canada Highway-Pat Bay connector. I do have a copy of the minister's letter to the mayor of the municipality of Saanich. Also, I received a letter from the mayor regarding his concerns on that. While I don't want to pursue the argument of whether they should or shouldn't be devolved, the concerns I have relate more to the manner in which the devolution has occurred and what other possible mitigating measures can be taken now with regard to the maintenance costs.
In Saanich, as I understand it, along with these roads that are now their responsibility comes some maintenance costs, and that's to be expected. However, to suddenly pass on these roads without an understanding of the liability that can exist in terms of maintenance was unfortunate, I think. I'm wondering, in light of the letter that has been sent to the minister's office, whether there have been any changes or any delays in the sharing of maintenance costs since the date of May 15. We all know that from a municipal level, roads being maintained must have some program that ensures a review is undertaken, whether it's every six months, every three months or every year, in order to reduce the risk of liability. The risk managers are very aware of that. When some new roads are suddenly added on -- and in this case, the two that I mentioned -- we have a similar problem, but the risk manager is not able to quickly assess where their liability rests.
My primary concern is no longer the issue of the devolution, because that's a done deal, but whether the ministry has any plans to go back to some municipalities -- this one and others that may be in this situation -- which you have suddenly put at risk because there are no records of how frequently the roads have been maintained and when the last time they were reviewed was, etc. So if the minister could provide some insight as to where we're headed on this, I would appreciate that.
Hon. H. Lali: I believe the letter was sent after May 15. We haven't seen the letter yet, so I can't really comment in detail on the particular letter from the municipality.
Municipalities do have experience in maintaining roads. Obviously they maintain lot of their own roads on a regular basis. The ministry is willing to share any of the records it has with the municipalities to make the task easier.
We could also have the contractor continue to do the work if the municipality would pay for the maintenance. That would take care of the liability issue, as the contractor would carry it himself.
[11:30]
I. Chong: I appreciate the minister's and the ministry's offer to share those records. That is very important. For the benefit of the minister, if a road has a required review every six months, and there are accidents that are attributable to significant potholes or indentations in the roads, then municipalities are liable. However, if there is a proven record that a review is done -- whether it's every six months, nine months or every year -- the risk manager is usually able to absolve the municipality from that kind of liability. So these roads were devolved, and some work was due to be done within two weeks or a month of the devolution. My concern is that if the municipality does not get access to this information fairly quickly, it could be subject to that kind of liability issue. I won't prod the issue much more, except to express my concern that the ministry act very quickly on providing roads maintenance records to all the municipalities so that they can mitigate those possible liability risks that are looming out there.The other issue I want to raise has to do with road signage. We had a bit of discussion on this last year, and I'm not going to go over the S and A program, the attraction sign program. What I understood when I was doing my research last year was that there were some other signs, some larger signs, which had not yet been standardized or made uniform. I understand that those are coming up for review either this summer or next year, and I'm wondering what direction the ministry is taking on that. In particular, what consultation is going to be taking place so that we don't have the same fallout as we've had recently with the smaller signage?
Hon. H. Lali: The hon. member is referring to the grandfather signs. I think that's what it's called; is it grandfathering the signs?
Interjection.
Hon. H. Lali: Yeah, the grandfathering of the signs. I believe that's the issue; it's not that the signs are grandfathers.
We're still in the process of establishing a committee to give us advice on the service and attraction signs, so we'll continue to look at it.
I. Chong: For clarification, is the minister suggesting that a committee would be set up to deal with the service and attraction signs, particularly for these larger signs? I understand that there was a committee set up and that there was a report commissioned. There were 29 recommendations that came out of a particular report in 1994, I believe.
We've gone back and forth on this. I'm not dealing specifically with those blue and white signs that we all know have caused concern to the tourism industry. I understand that there's still some work being done on that. What I am talking about are those larger grandfathered signs, which do need some attention. I'm wondering whether or not the recommendations that came out of that report can deal with that, rather than setting up yet another task force or committee to deal with it. Surely there has been something in the works, knowing that this was coming. That's what I'm looking for: can the minister share with us what will happen?
[ Page 8119 ]
I think it's next year when the time line runs out on these signs -- when something has to be done with these larger-than-average signs. The last thing that we would want is for all these constituents, whether they be in the minister's riding or mine, to call us up and say: "We didn't know this was coming." Those of us here know that the time is coming very soon. Again, to avoid the backlash that occurred last year, it would be very productive if we moved along and found that out for our constituents so that we don't deal with the same problem. That's all I was requesting, that the minister help provide information or clarification on not so much the blue and whites that are there now -- we know that there are still some difficulties -- but on those larger ones. There must be some movement in that area. Nothing has been done in the last eight years, as I understand it, on those signs.Hon. H. Lali: Actually, we're not reinventing the wheel. The task force that would look at the signs -- to be able to do that -- was recommended by the stakeholders themselves. They'll look at that whole issue and the 29 recommendations that the hon. member mentioned. We'll take action after the task force has had a chance to deliberate.
I. Chong: Then can I ask the minister: has he given a time line to the task force to report back? All too often we have these task forces or committees working out there, and in order to be effective or more efficient, it would be opportune to have a time line. Is it possible to advise if there is one?
Hon. H. Lali: We haven't given the task force a time line yet. In terms of the grandparented signs -- I have been told that is the correct terminology, not "grandfathered" anymore, just to be politically correct -- we're expecting some recommendations this fall.
I. Chong: I'm not sure from the minister's answer. Can I presume that the task force is already commissioned to be active? Or has that yet to be established?
Hon. H. Lali: It hasn't been formally reconstituted; however, we're in the process right now.
I. Chong: I guess the operative words are stay tuned. Thank you.
The last area that I would like to canvass in this particular ministry is in regard to Highways vehicles. It relates, I understand, to the Ministry of Environment. The issue I have is that we're all getting more and more concerned about the emissions from vehicles and air pollution and the stress it is causing for some people in certain parts of the province. This government in particular has a fleet of vehicles, many of which are in the Ministry of Transportation and Highways. Last year I was not able to get any sort of response to what this government -- whether it be this ministry or I'll have to go through every ministry -- is doing in terms of reducing the emissions from these vehicles.
We had the debate last year regarding the fuel tax on propane. Perhaps if government had been more proactive, it would have looked at converting their vehicles. I understood that this provincial government and a lot of municipal governments had not looked at converting vehicles in that regard. I don't know whether it was a financial restriction or whether it was just something that had not been discussed.
I'm wondering whether there are any ongoing discussions currently in this ministry to deal with converting vehicles, whether there is anything to deal with the possible reduction of emissions and whether this ministry will take that lead and perhaps other ministries would follow.
Hon. H. Lali: We support the concept that the hon. member mentioned. For a definitive answer to that, she'll have to talk to the Ministry of Finance, which has the lead role in this issue.
I. Chong: I appreciate that. I did not realize that the Ministry of Finance takes the lead. I suppose the answer more or less comes down to that it's a financial issue as opposed to a policy issue. If in fact it is the Ministry of Finance that has to take the lead, I would have expected that this ministry, having so many more vehicles within its budget -- a bit more than other ministries -- would perhaps provide the leadership at the cabinet table.
I'm hopeful that this minister would ensure that this discussion takes place. I know there is a cost. I'm not suggesting that we spend more money, but at the same time there are huge health-risk costs related to pollution that some people have to deal with. We have to balance one cost off another.
I will leave it at that. If the minister wishes to respond, that's fine. I would appreciate that he is cognizant of this issue and that his ministry can in fact be a leader in this area to move towards some way of converting vehicles or looking at purchasing new vehicles that have the least amount of emissions. With that I conclude my remarks. If the minister wishes to add anything to that, then that's fine.
Hon. H. Lali: I just want to make a clarification. The Ministry of Finance has this issue not because it is a financial issue per se but rather because the management of the fleet is under the Minister of Finance. It is for that reason.
But the member does raise a really good idea in terms of the alternate fuels that she has recommended. I also want to point out that B.C. is actually the first in the world to use, on the Albion ferry, the natural gas and diesel fuel mixture on a fuel cell. We're taking the lead in that particular area. Again, I'll pass on these comments to the Minister of Finance.
D. Symons: I realize we're getting very close to adjournment time.
I want to ask a few questions on the Minister of Transportation and Highways' "Corporate Performance Measures" -- '96-97 is the version I have. The first question is: is this a document that is updated yearly? This is '96-97. Will there be a '97-98 and so forth? Is it done in a regular fashion?
Hon. H. Lali: Yes.
D. Symons: Good. I'd love an updated copy then.
Could the minister give us a brief description of the highway safety improvement program, which in my document here, from '96-97, is on page 6? I wonder if you might give us just a brief description of that. And then it's going to be about break time.
Hon. H. Lali: I'll give the hon. member two definitions. For fatality rate, it's the number of deaths in traffic accidents per year over 100 million kilometres travelled. For the injury rate, it's the number of injuries in traffic accidents per year over 100 million kilometres travelled.
[11:45]
[ Page 8120 ]
The Chair: Shall vote
D. Symons: Oh, no way.
The Chair: I recognize the member for Richmond Centre.
D. Symons: Only once in a lifetime. Good try, though.
I have some more questions, but seeing the time I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 11:46 a.m.
[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]
Copyright © 1998: Queen's Printer, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada